On 1/10/2010 8:44 PM, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 12:09:08PM -0800, Brett Cannon wrote:
I don't think ending the 2.x series at 2.7 makes it look bad
compared to 3.2; it's simply the end of a development line like
any other software project. I suspect 2.7 will have a protracted
bugfix window because so much code runs on 2.x exclusively at the
moment.
I would guess over 99% of all Python code written doesn't run on
Python 3.
If the removal of old features had been done in the 2.x series, as once
planned (Guido originally proposed removing the old meaning of int / int
in 2.5) the same more or less would be true of 2.7. It is past time for
other old and now duplicated features to be removed also.
Given that, I think it is premature to close the door on
new major versions of Python 2.x. Also, we as a project should be
careful not to present the image that Python 2.x will not be
supported in the future.
If there really is an outcry on this we can re-visit the issue,
but as of right now we need to move forward at some point and 2.7
seems like that good point.
I think that's bad PR. If I had a successful product, I would not
announce its end of life just to see how many customers scream and
then decide if I should devote more resources to continue
maintaining it.
Python is not being ended, but upgraded (with bloating duplications
removed). Think of 3.1 as 2.8 with a new name.
tjr
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
